Yahoo finance

[snappyturtle]

Source: Yahoo











Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/

---

http://finance.yahoo.com/

Dow down 412! Watch the markets on this link. Asia and Europe available too.

[leftynyc]

1. Holy cow - oil

under $30/barrel. When are airline prices going to come down? This is terrible news for TX/OK/SD - any state that relies on oil for jobs - and any country that does - gotta be hurting Russia's economy.

[Bubzer]

2. While it sucks that they're hurting economically, I see this as a growing pains issue.

We need to move off oil-based fuels ASAP. A little economic pain is worth avoiding a global environmental crisis.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/oil-solutions-work#.VpkIBqrUhIA

[leftynyc]

4. I agree 100% (n/t)

[Renew Deal]

6. Agree

The oil madness needs to end ASAP

[earthside]

8. I wish that were the explanation.

But this is much bigger than that.

I think we are seeing the beginnings of a deflationary spiral because (at least for America) poor, working and middle class people just don't have any spending power left. Of course, that means buying fewer imports and that means slowing the economy in China, etc.

Don't forget also that a lot of tax revenue for all levels of government is tied to taxing fossil fuels, this crash in the price of oil is going to once again starve governments and further twist the spiral down.

Wealth inequality is killing us.

[Delphinus]

9. You are so right!

Wealth inequality is killing us.

[Bubzer]

11. I'm not sure I agree.

I actually think a decrease in the cost of a barrel of crude is going to stimulate the economy in two important way, one
being long term and the other being short term.

First are the short term effects: People will be better able to afford travel, and will have a little extra money to spend. This means bills get paid, items get bought, services get rendered. All positive short term impacts.

Obviously, short term impacts alone wont serve us well. So lets look at some long term effects.

The cost of most items are directly tied to the cost of oil... specifically because most items require a transport vector... and most transport vectors use oil in some way... whether it be as fuel, lubricant, replacement petroleum-based-components, etc. A decrease in distribution costs tends to lead to a gradual decrease in item costs. This decrease over the long term will help keep people able to spend money on all the aforementioned items.

This is, of course, speculative... and far from being all-inclusive of the variables that may come into play.
It does, however, illustrate that a decrease in oil cost probably wont be the downward spiral you suggest it may be.

Wealth inequality, on the other hand, is an entirely different situation.

[GummyBearz]

24. I found the problem with this scenario...

"First are the short term effects: People will be better able to afford travel, and will have a little extra money to spend"

Oil is down 50% in the last year, gas prices down about 15% (in california). Was paying around ~3.70 last year, I just filled up and it was $3.09.

[rjsquirrel]

41. Not even close to true

American consumers have plenty of spending power and real wages have been rising lately.

This is not a deflationary sign anyway.


Let me guess -- you listen to Thom Hartmann.

[Bubzer]

46. "Let me guess -- you listen to Thom Hartmann" - You say that like it's a bad thing.

[melm00se]

12. the thing to worry about

is that "a little economic pain" from one group's point of view can be a strategic threat by another.

Economic upheaval (or the threat thereof) can lead to violent reactions which could be even worse.

[yeoman6987]

27. I don't particularly like this happening in 2016

Already talk of a recession. That does not help democratic politicians in an election year. This regardless is not good at all. Hopefully be June things will turn around. If this is still going on in October.....not good.

[Kingofalldems]

28. Man--all day every day.

Concerned.

[Javaman]

38. also the hopeful upshot here in Texas is...

most of the oil is owned by repubs

if they lose money, that's less they can give to their in-the-pocket politicians.

[TexasBushwhacker]

3. The good news is that fracking isn't profitable n/t

[leftynyc]

5. Did you see earlier

this week there was a report that there are now more jobs in the solar panel industry than in the oil industry. My heart sang.

[turbinetree]

7. Do you think that when the RBS..........................

this week said get out of stocks that they knew something.......................just asking


Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[snappyturtle]

10. Yes I do think RBS knows something. nt

[cyberpj]

16. Sorry, RBS?... n/t

[snappyturtle]

22. Royal Bank of Scotland nt

[MowCowWhoHow III]

13. DJIA -500

[snappyturtle]

14. Nasdaq down even a bigger percentage. WOW! nt

[Myrina]

15. Between a rock & a hard place here ...

I was fortunate enough 2 years ago to land a job that pays more than I ever imagined. But since I am single with no dependents, I have had to put the max into my 401k to keep the IRS from raping me blind every April.

Is it better to keep it at the current % and hope it doesn't all vanish with the Stock Market losses, or should I back it down to a minimal % and just deal with the tax implications on my paychecks?

[brooklynite]

18. "to keep the IRS from raping me blind every April"

Otherwise known as, "paying your share of a progressive tax system to pay for initiatives of a Democratic President."

[Earth_First]

19. Hmmm... nt

[progree]

20. Not sure I follow. 401K plans are generally not restricted to stocks

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Most 401K plans have an assortment of fund offerings, including equity and bond funds, and ones that are a mixture of both, such as target date funds and balance funds. And you still enjoy the tax deferral of 401K's whichever you pick.

And you definitely, always, should at least put into a 401K each year the amount that the employer matches. Never makes sense to turn down free money.

Though a word of caution -- the ages-old time-tested advice is to buy on the dips, not sell on the dips. The stock market periodically sets new highs; it never has set a new low. All the daily and monthly (and even multi-year) ups and downs are just noise to long-term investors.

Another ages-old time-tested advice: its time in the market, not trying to time the market that leads to investing success. Almost nobody has a consistent record of successfully timing the market.

[Myrina]

21. Ok, I need to revisit what I have my allocations going into, then.

I recall they were pretty aggressive markets, not the 'slow growth/stable' bonds etc.

Thanks !

[Bernin]

23. Hate to

be the bearer of bad news. But, 401k is a scam to keep you separated from your money. Let me explain. Suppose you put $100,000 into a 401k back in 2000. Today that $100k has the buying power of 50k and taxes on it as you withdraw it are higher than they were in 2000.

Since you already have money locked up in a 401k my advice for volatile times like these is to convert it to cash and let it sit in the 401k account until the turmoil blows over.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

29. "Suppose you put $100,000 into a 401k back in 2000."

Your severely flawed argument makes sense only in the rare situation that you put $100,000, at one time, into stocks right around March 10, 2000. That was the peak of the Dow and the NASDAQ Composite, more or less. If that were the case, then yes, you did suffer from some awful timing.

The way most people invest in a 401(k), however, is not to put in the money all at one time. Rather, a deduction is made from your paycheck every two weeks. As prices decline, your periodic investment buys more shares of a mutual fund than it did when prices were high. This practice is known as dollar cost averaging.

Most people like to buy when things are on sale, not the opposite.

Hope this helps.

[Bernin]

34. Your flawed

argument mistakes stock values for dollar values.
The dollar today is about 45% of what it was in 2000 regardless of what your investments did.

[SheilaT]

30. Ummmm, $100,000 back in 2000 is NOT worth only 50k today.

And if you put 100, into a 401k back then and still have only 100k some fifteen years later, you may have been making some very poor investment choices. Investors who buy and sell a lot, or who shift funds around chasing returns, usually do much worse than simply investing in an index fund and leaving the money alone.

Not to mention, you should have been putting money in since then.

At the moment my investments are taking a bit of a hit, but I'm not sweating it because I'm invested for the long term.

[Bernin]

32. Wrong

The dollar today is worth about 45% of what it was in 2000.

[SheilaT]

44. According to various on-line inflation calculators,

there's been about 37% inflation since 2000. Not 50% or more.

[whatthehey]

31. Personally I put in a given percentage every two weeks like most people

And in doing so get free money I otherwise wouldn't, and avoid paying taxes that believe me are higher than I am likely to pay in retirement.

And I hate to break it to you but, even now after a couple of weeks of China panic, my 401k balance is about 7 times the amount I've contributed to it over the last 20 years. Has your cash done that?

[Bernin]

33. When you retire

the taxes you pay will be more than they are now. Taxes do not go down. The value of the dollar will be less as well.
That is by design of the Federal Reserve Note. Each consecutive generation works harder for less.
All you are doing by putting your money in a 401k is making yourself weaker by not having access to it.

And yes in 2008 my cash fared much better than ANYONE's retirement account.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

37. "And yes in 2008 my cash fared much better than ANYONE's retirement account. "

How about 2009?

How about 2009 - 2015?

Also: "Taxes do not go down."

The rates change if you experience a drop in income, such as, say, when you retire.

[whatthehey]

39. I think your estimate of my retirement income is a bit optimistic

...to think that I'll be in the same tax bracket I am now. And your ideas that taxes don't go down is plain denial of recent history. You might see a few comments on this site about the effect of the Bush tax cuts.

The value of each dollar will be less, but I have a whole lot more of them than I would have had I just kept them in cash, and there's no reason to expect that will not continue since it's already been so through the last 3 recessions for me personally and 3 generations historically. That's the whole investment thing in a nutshell.

I'll see your 2008 and raise you a 2013. The joys of DCA.

[daleo]

17. I bailed out of the market early in the month

But it is still painful to see this, knowing a recession is quite likely now (just my hunch).

[WhoWoodaKnew]

25. Buy low. Just wait for it to turn back up.

[dembotoz]

26. does anyone else who is old enuf before the internet get a bit of a shiver getting news from yahoo

as in "that guy is a real yahoo"


i know it is a trusted big company yada yada yada

but to see the words finance.yahoo

we must be a bunch of dummies
yah i know.....hey kids get off my lawn

[Bernin]

35. Trusted big company.

Yahoo has a P/E ratio of 125.
Yahoo is going going gone.

[Bernin]

36. Reading

the defense of 401k's in here reminds me of Joseph P. Kennedy's shoe shine boy moment.

[whatthehey]

40. It's pretty easy to defend something that has made you a lot of money with minimal effort.

Hell I get a 38% gain just by participating, as my employer like most offers matching.

Anyone not participating to the maximum extent of an offered match is literally stupid enough to turn away free money.

[Hestia]

42. True, but I think what Benin is trying to say is that deduct 30% from your 401(k) total - that is

how much in fees, handling, etc. that is charged to each account.

There is/was a congressman from Calif. who tried to get this changed back in the 1990s, early 2000s for each brokerage to account for each and every fee charged to 401(k) accounts. These fees are not disclosed. Wall St. is making a pile off of fees to all of our accounts. You are still making money just probably not as much as you had planned on at the end of the day.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

43. Google "Phyllis Borzi" at DU.

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 08:58 PM - Edit history (2)

Some helpful links in general:

Google "Phyllis Borzi" at DU.

Google "Borzi," as in Phyllis Borzi, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration.

If you never do anything else today, watch this video. It was broadcast on April 23, 2013.

Tonight on FRONTLINE: The Retirement Gamble

Phyllis C. Borzi appears in the show.

Please see the article about excessive 401(k) fees in the September 2013 issue of Consumer Reports

There's a ton of information here:

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Understanding Your Retirement Plan Fees

Maximize Your Retirement Savings - Tips on Using the Fee and Investment Information From Your Retirement Plan

Full disclosure: I have money in Vanguard funds.

Vanguard offers funds with active management, Jack Bogle's beliefs notwithstanding. It's like your grocery store. You can buy broccoli there, and you can buy chocolate-covered marshmallows there. They leave the choice up to you.

[progree]

45. Vanguard hosts a lot of 401 K plans too, thank goodness

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)

There is nothing, literally absolutely nothing about 401 K's in the law that means a lot of fees.

For example, my former employer paid the administrative costs of the 401 K plan (and still does as far as I know), and included index funds from Vanguard (and other fund families), which, as you know have extremely low costs -- for example the Vanguard S&P 500 index fund has a 0.17% expense ratio for investments of $3,000 to $10,000 (VFINX) and 0.05% for $10,000 and over (VFIAX).

VFINX incidentally has an average annualized return of 10.85%/year since its August 31, 1976 inception to yesterday's close. This is the return AFTER fund fees and expenses. For a cumulative total return of 57.71, i.e. $1,000 invested back then would be worth $57,710 now. A lot better return than sitting in cash like that poor person upthread was suggesting.

http://www.thestreet.com/quote/VFINX.html

Not to mention they also matched employee 401 K contributions up to, IIRC, 8% of salary.

If someone is in a 401 K that costs 1% or more in fees, the employer is the one to blame.

Yes, there are ripoff employers who use their 401 K plans to fuck their employees rather than do what they should be doing -- giving their employees low cost investment choices. In particular, given that few employers offer pensions anymore, the very least they can be doing as a way to contributing to their employees' retirement is picking up the administrative expenses for the 401 Ks.

I have seen the Frontline Retirement Gamble thing twice as well as read that Consumers Report. Yes there are asswipe employers.